[Neurons] 2009 Meta Reflections #21

[L. Michael Hall]

From: L. Michael Hall

2009 Meta Reflections #21

May 11, 2009

 

 

GRINDER'S OLD "NEW" CODE

AND SELF-REFLEXIVITY

 

 

I have recently had several conversations with people from the Grinder Camp
of NLP-the "new" code people.  I usually begin by teasing them:

"How many years does something have to be around before you stop calling it
'new' and recognize that it is now 'old?'  If the 'new code' was new in 1985
and it is now 24 years later, isn't it about time to recognize that it is an
old code?"

 

They usually smile and say, "Yeah, yeah, I know."  But one guy was
persistent.  "It is 'new' to the 'classic' code."  So I said:

"So the 'classic' code of 1975 was old by 1985 compared to the 'new' code of
1985?  Ten years and it was considered 'old.'  Hmmmm; interesting.  So then
'the newest code' of Neuro-Semantics, 2008 now makes the 'new' code a former
'classic' code.  Right?!"

 

He immediately entered into a deep trance and accessed his unconscious mind
which, knowing everything, confirmed how right I was, so he did the alphabet
game for the last time, and did an unconscious uptake on my meta-stating
skills.  And after that he felt compelled to go on a vision quest for
identifying the highest meta-states of all... 

 

Well, not really.  But it would have been a nice ending.  Actually I
recently meet an intelligent and articulate NLP Trainer of the Grinder Camp
in Toronto at the Conference and had a fierce conversation in which we both
sought to get to the heart of things as quickly as we could.  He said that
Grinder's point to me and Robert Dilts was singular:

"While the 'third perceptual position' is a higher logical level and a
meta-state, the form of meta-stating is simply stepping back and bringing
some thoughts and feelings to the first access and every other meta-state is
the same thing, the same form, so there's no need for all of the meta-states
that you present, it is one form; nothing more."

 

I really appreciated that he shared that perspective.  I appreciate it
because while it is wrong, in that short exchange I was able to discover
John Grinder's mistake and the false conclusion that keeps him from
recognizing the Meta-States Model.  John sees a single form in meta-stating,
namely, stepping back and applying a next level of thoughts-and-feelings to
a previous state.  And because that's all he sees, that limits him to a
linear kind of thinking: A -> B and the next level of meta-state, another A
-> B and then another A -> B and so on.  Just more and more linear thinking.
And if that's all that was involved in the Meta-States Model, he would be
right.

But thank the angels of the higher levels, he is not.  The Meta-States Model
involved much more-much, much more!  Yes human self-reflexivity does involve
A -> B, but after that it is not just more of the same, it then becomes more
as it facilitates the emergence of other properties and mechanisms.  As a
person makes the first meta-jump to think B about A and then does that
again, the next time B2 is reflecting on both B1  and A.  With the next jump
B3 is thinking and feeling about B2, B1, and A.  And so it goes, and as it
does simultanity enters the picture.  When the next meta-jump occurs, all of
the others are still occurring and being enriched and textured and in this
complexity gestalt states emerge- states that are more than the sum of all
of these factors.

 

This shifts the richness of your state from linear thinking to systems
thinking and operating.  The Meta-States Model is not just about one frame
or another frame- it is about all of the frames that we meta-state and which
make up the largest gestalt experience- the Matrix of all of our frames of
meaning.  And this is systemic in another dimension.  While all of this is
going on cognitively, it is also going on neurologically, somatically,
emotionally, and conatively.

 

That is, we are not only engaged in the feedback to ourselves layer upon
layer, we are simultaneously feeding-forward into the body "energy" for
emotions and then speech and behavior as all of this creates our states.
The input that we use for feedback at various levels then become through-put
which goes through the mind-body-emotion system and then becomes
feed-forward or out-put (to introduce a bit of systems language).

 

And there's more.  As all of this is happening, so is multi-ordinality.
Korzybski introduced this term to describe that the meanings we create at
each level of our meta-stating (or abstracting, his term).  At least level
the meanings are different- even if they are encoded in the same term.
"Love" at the first level (attraction) differs from "love of love"
(infatuation) at the second level and from "love of love of love"
(romanticism) at the third level and so on.  "Fear" at the first level
(sense of danger of something external) differs from "fear of fear"
(paranoia) at the second level and differs from "fear of fear of fear"
(agoraphobia) at the third level.

 

Multi-ordinality shows that meta-stating at each level is not "the same
form" repeated endless as the 'new' code people would suggest.  That is
thinking in a linear way about human consciousness.  When we think
systemically, we begin to realize that it is not an either/or proposition,
but that the higher experiences are both/and experiences. 

 

With the creation of layers of meta-states about various subjects we call
into existence the creation of our frame unconscious.  This refers to the
Matrix of frames that we live in as our canopy of consciousness that is
mostly outside-of-consciousness.  These operate as our current meta-programs
and our unconscious interpretative schema for giving meaning to things and
responding automatically as we do to most things.  And if these are
ill-formed, then they operate as dragon states to us, turning our energies
against ourselves.  If they are well-formed, then they comprise the
structures of expertise and excellence.

 

John asked in his book, "Why the proliferation of meta-states?"  I didn't
fully understand how he could not understand that.  But now I get it.  If he
is thinking linearly, A -> B, and he thinks that it all that
self-reflexivity is and fully explains how it works, then yes I can see how
he mis-understands the dynamic and systemic nature of meta-states and the
other mechanisms involved when a person transcends and includes a state and
does so level after level. 

 

No wonder that "New Code" does not and cannot understand and adequately
model the special kind of consciousness we humans have-self-reflexivity.  No
wonder the unique nature of human consciousness, having a self-reflexive
mind, was never included or modeled in the original "classic" code of NLP or
in the "new code" in 1985.  It was not until 1994 when I introduced the
Meta-States Model that self-reflexivity was finally modeled for the NLP
model -which Wyatt Woodsmall immediately recognized as did the International
Association of NLP Trainers. 

 

[For more about this, see the exchanges on  <http://www.neurosemantics.com/>
www.neurosemantics.com between John Grinder and I that came from John's
questions and challenges about Meta-States in "Whispering in the Wind."
Also see the new article, "The Newest Code of NLP."]

 

 

 

 

Post Script:  

If you like, feel free to forward this post to anyone you think interested
in this.

 

 

 

L.  Michael Hall, Ph.D.

International Society of Neuro-Semantics

Meta-Coach Training System

P.O. Box 8

Clifton, CO.  81520 USA

1 970-523-7877

1 970-523-5790 fax

      <http://www.neurosemantics.com/> www.neurosemantics.com 

       <http://www.neuro-semantics-trainings.com/>
www.neuro-semantics-trainings.com 

       <http://www.self-actualizing.org/> www.self-actualizing.org

       <http://www.meta-coaching.org/> www.meta-coaching.org

       <http://www.ns-video.com/> www.ns-video.com 

 

To sign up for a free subscription to the egroup of Neuro-Semantics
(Neurons) go to  <http://www.neurosemantics.com/> www.neurosemantics.com ---
you can  subscribe and unsubscribe there.   Meta Reflection articles by Dr.
Hall are sent out every Monday and meta-Coach Reflections sent out every
Wednesdday to the Meta-Coaches egroup.

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eight.pairlist.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20090511/1d7df8a4/attachment.htm>